Why didn't Clinton reinstate the Fairness Doctrine?

[Cascadian]

Reagan threw it out. Clinton had every chance to reinstate it. It might have helped him out a great deal in the media. Instead, keeping the Fairness Doctrine out brought right-wing clowns out of the woodwork like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Insannity (I mean Hannity!), and Savage Wiener.

I really think if Kerry gets the White House, he should make this one of his top priorities for the sake of a real "fair and balanced" media.


John

[MikeG]

1. If Kerry's win is big enough, he can change the law.

Believe me, we won't miss them.

[dumpster_baby]

2. yup, clinton was just another corporate lapdog neoliberal

what did ya expect, exactly?

[Cascadian]

4. He had eight years.

He really needed to turn this around and change it and instead keeping the Fairness Doctrine out has further Sovietized the mainstream media in this country. Remember, there WAS a time when the media actually DID their jobs and covered real news as opposed to talking about Michael Jackson and Paris Hilton.


John

[The Backlash Cometh]

25. Like Clinton had a lot of support from the Democrats back in those days.

There's blame to go around on this one.

[Delano]

26. Yep -signed the 1996 telecommunications act

allowing even MORE consolidation. That helped make Clear Channel what it is today.

He was a fine president in some ways, but he was only barely a democrat, and certainly no liberal.

[bemildred]

3. When you watch a soap opera, do you ask why the actors play their parts?

Politics is a show, politicians are actors. The beginning of
political sophistication is the recognition that all of the
public dialog is theatre aimed at misleading and misdirecting
the public from what is really going on, and at obtaining at
least passive consent for the actions of the ruling class.

[dumpster_baby]

27. yup, we should just try 20% of them for treason

and then hang them on Washington Mall. Sometimes the Old Ways were Good Ways.

[Jim Warren]

29. reminds me

The illusion of freedom in America will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way, and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theatre.
--Frank Zappa

[Leprechan29]

5. What exactly is the fairness doctrine?

Link?

[TheWizardOfMudd]

9. Here is an excellent link

Explains it thoroughly.

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

[Leprechan29]

19. Thanks

After reading that, I'd have to say that the fairness doctrine in its original form would contradict the First Amendment. However, relating to personal attacks and campaign ads, it should be put into place. Additionally, certain stations should be allowed to run programming following only one ideology (i.e. religiously affiliated stations, conservative/liberal only stations, etc), though the majority of news outlets should show both sides of an issue, or be classified as a political forum (or similar term). A labeling system might serve us well as opposed to a system of requirements.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

22. Here is the problem I have

As referenced below in other responses, concentrated ownership by entities as Clear Channel who literally control radio, and sometimes TV, in entire cities, combined with propaganda 100% of the time for one political point of view or party, means that the public is only receiving one side of the story over our public airwaves.

As the campaign is heating up, I have heard Cheney, Ridge, Rumsfeld and a whole slew of republican senators and congressmen on Limbaugh's and Hannity's shows. Those guys don't go on any anybody else's shows that spend hours a day espousing a particular political point of view.

Something needs to be done!

[DieboldMustDie]

24. I don't see the Fairness Doctrine as contradicting the First Amendment.

The airwaves -- or electromagnetic spectrum -- belong to The People and are licensed by the media corporations. As a condition of their license it was considered, prior to 1987, their obligation to act in the public interest, and that included presenting opposing points of view re. controversial matters.

[DieboldMustDie]

23. The Fairness Doctrine required the broadcast media,...

in controversial matters, present opposing points of view.

"In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that the doctrine was not mandated by Congress and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it. The FCC dissolved the doctrine in August of that year... before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation."

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/fairnessdoct/fairnessdoct.htm

[Eric J in MN]

6. The Fairness Doctrine can only be re-instated by Congress.

The Fairness Doctrine can only be re-instated by Congress.

Yes, Clinton should have asked Congress for such a law, and didn't, but he couldn't re-instate The Fairnees Doctrine on his own.

[Liberal Classic]

7. We now have

500 cable channels and the internet to boot.

Honestly, why should Michael Moore be required by law to provide a forum for Charlton Heston to speak? This is certianly a burden, and compelled speech. Compelled speech is not free.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

16. The doctrine did not apply to movies

Only the public airwaves, methinks.

[Liberal Classic]

17. Yes, I realize that he is a movie producer

Perhaps I should have said "The Michael Moore Show" to make that part clear. I used him as an example simply because he has been in the news a lot lately and is a celebrity to some degree.

Instead of Moore, substitute Al Franken.

[Cheswick2.0]

35. you misrepresent the fairness doctrin

It would not require individual talking head shows to give both sides. It would require that the opposition be given equal time on the same network. For instance, the republicans always had time to refute whatever was said by a Democratic president during a State of the Union address.

[FDRrocks]

8. I won't argue that Clinton was a liberal...

In fact in many respects I do not look up to him. Even if he did try to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, the Republican houses would've blocked it. Very similar to his Medicare measures.

But, as far as I know, he didn't even try.

[Cascadian]

10. He could have given it half a chance.

If it failed, he could have at least be credited for trying. I hope Kerry will pay attention to this and call for it to be reinstated.

Somebody out there in DU-land who has Kerry campaign connections should take a look at this and bend the Senator's ear about this subject. Kerry ought to bring it up.


John

[DaveSZ]

12. Yeppers

Someone else beat me to it.

Clinton was a corporate whore neo lib.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

11. First Amendment problems?

I understand the Supreme Court upheld the doctrine in 1969, but many of the rationales for the doctrine have disappeared due to advancements in technology.

I wonder whether or not it would be found unconstitutional today if challenged.

[shraby]

14. What needs to be done is

break up the media monopolies, then fairness might have a chance.

[Leprechan29]

20. In its original form

I would hope it would be found unconstitutional

[dumpster_baby]

28. we need a whole new Constitution

Our present one was written by a bunch of aristocrats, a lot of whom made a living exploiting slaves and indentured servants. It was written for them and not for us.

[DBoon]

13. Forget the Fairness Doctrine

Go after concentrated media ownership instead.

If we did not have mega-conglomerate ownership of print, radio, cable, satellite, and broadcast TV, fairness would take care of itself.

Saying this, I need to ask the question: Why was Clinton supportive of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which turned out to be a total boondoggle for corporate media ownership?

[shraby]

15. You just beat me to

the answer. LOL

[KittyWampus]

32. Thanks, It's Too Late For A Return To "Fairness Doctrine"

and further, the Left has to start building its own version of the Rightwing/Corporate Media Empire.

[iconoclastic cat]

18. Why is the question, all right.

Why didn't he reinstate the Fairness Doctrine? Why didn't he pursue the "National Conversation on Race"? Why didn't he just wait a few years before giving the R's a reason to castigate him? Lots of questions there.

[davekriss]

21. 1987

As I recall it, 1987 was the year the FCC Fairness Doctrine regulation was overturned in the courts. In response, the regulation was codified into law in 1989, passing both the House and Senate, but George Herbert Walker Bush vetoed it. Since then there were a few attempts to revive the bill but PAC pressure and Republican control of Congress have squelched any success.

Don't forget the Rule of Sevens. Originally, the FCC regulation stated that no entity can own more than 7 television stations, 7 radio stations, and 7 newspapers. It was even more restrictive in any given market. The Reagan-Bush years managed to soften this regulation so that, by the time Clinton emerged, no entity could own more than 20 each. Then Clinton signed media legislation in 1996 (I can't recall the title at the moment) that weakened the Rule of Sevens still further: Now an entity can own any combination of radio, television, and newspapers as long as market reach does not extend beyond 35% (that's potential to reach, not actual captured market). Most recently, Colin Powell's son wanted to rescind this regulation altogether, but public pressure resulted in containing change so now no entity can own more than 45% market reach.

This degradation of the Rule of Sevens is why ownership of the 29,000+ major media outlets have gone from 2,000 owners in 1980 to just 6 owners today. We now have a near-monopolization of the major media that is no longer forced to present all sides of issues of controversy in return for the privilege of making money off of the public 'commons'. Instead, these 29,000+ outlets are free to reflect the point of view of the 6 mega-corporations that control them.

Think GE, a major weapons manufacturer, will let it's NBC and MSNBC strongly present the case against the war in 2002 and 2003? Think again.

Restoring the Fairness Doctrine and Rule of Sevens are amongst the early steps that need to be taken to sieze back our democracy from the neo-imperial oligarchs in power today.

[dbt]

30. By Clinton's second term, Congress had been bought off.

I engaged my own Democratic Congressman in a dialogue over the FD back then. His main concern was that it would not pass muster under the First Amendment. His second concern was that there were too many members of Congress who owed something to media companies for a reinstatement to pass.

Has Congress been bought off? You have only to look at the impeachment of Bill Clinton in late 98 and early 99. The Pugs went ahead with their case in the House, knowing full well that it was DOA in the Senate. They went ahead, knowing full well that two-thirds of the American public were opposed to it.

Somebody wanted Clinton impeached and the cost was no object. Congress was offered either money or favors to do it; either way, they were bought.

Clinton didn't have a snowball's chance in New Orleans at reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. And he knew it.

:freak:
dbt

[NewJeffCT]

31. They would find a bunch of Alan Colmes like "liberals"

And put them up against the bombastic Hannity types... so, even if it was reinstated, most newscasts would get around it like that.

Also, could you prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Brit Hume is biased towards Republicans? Yes, I know he is, and I'm sure 99.9% of DUs will say "yes" to that, but to Joe Average, or Millie Moderate, would you be able to do it?

[Joanne98]

33. Why did Clinton sign the Telecommications act?

That was so stupid.

[tinanator]

34. For the same reason his appointees RAPED the Pacifica network

Surely Kerry will do better? If you believe he can, you must clap your hands...